III. Legalism: You May Have Legalism(And Not Even Know It)In Your Life

[Sevenseas]

Some verses originally posted by GE (right after the op) which might be good to consider instead of endless argument and spinning of the gospel.

Let us not pervert what Christ has done for us.

Eph 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

John 5:24

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

1 John 1:9

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 5:1

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:37-39

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 John 4:18

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

[nebula]

Side debate, but not everyone agrees that pants by default "pertaineth to a man," and nothing in the Bible can be used to tag such.

Jesus said that love is the fulfillment of the Law. Now I can explain to a young woman how dressing in a short skirt and tight low-cut blouse is not loving because of how it provokes men to lust. However, I cannot conceive of any explanation for how dress slacks or the like violates love (and I'm not including tight jeans, which would be classified with the mini skirt or the long skirt with an exposed leg slit).

Frankly Nebula, you can't even do that believing what you do, because not everyone agrees that a mini skirt or a skirt with a long slit is wrong. I remember we had this discussion another time, and I was amazed at how women were arguing all the dresses marketed today were not decent. They were actually being as legalistic about those articles of clothing, as they were accusing me of being with regard to pants. The issue to me is that just as a man becomes effeminate wearing a dress, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 says an effeminate man will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, a woman loses her feminine appearance when she wears pants. I see women everyday that are wearing clothing a tough guy would wear working outdoors. If it is a sin for a guy to be effeminate, I don't see how God could look at it as right for a woman to choose not to be feminine. The word effeminate specifically mentions clothing in the definition.

But do you see what is happening here, Butero? You are taking your interpretive application of Scripture and making it Law.

I believe mini skirts and skirts with a leg slit to be provocative, don't you? I sure don't dare dress that way around my fiance, because I don't want to tempt him.

Likewise, it is your personal belief that women appear less feminine in pants. Not everyone agrees with this.

But masculinity and femininity come from the heart. If you don't fix the heart condition, the clothes mean squat. That's what Jesus emphasized in the Sermon on the Mount - focus on the heart.

[Sevenseas]

and the other thing that is happening, is that the entire focus of the thread has become about what Butero wants the rest of us to belive. This has happened so frequently that I would hope

we stop it and actually discuss the thread and not some people's beliefs on legalism. He could always start his own thread from which he could defend his stance and anyone who wished

to engage him in the deadlock this thread has developed, could seek him out there

[saved34]

Butero, the "willful sin" of Hebrews 10 is not talking about "sins" or "sinning" in the traditional sense, it is talking about a complete rejection of the economy of Grace that is found only in the sacrifice of Christ. Many were turning back to Old Covenant sacrifices. This is why it is said that "there remains no more or no other sacrifice for sins". Like Tinky said, most of the sins any man or woman commits is "willful". Though I do agree with you that we can sin in ignorance as well.

As far as you being proud to be a legalist, your definition is pretty much your own. When we speak against legalism, and those who hold to legalism we are talking about false brethren and those who add to the pure Gospel of Christ. I know you are against it as well as you acknowledge that only through Jesus Christ and his shed blood is there salvation. You are not a legalist in the sense that we are talking about. The men and women we are talking about are under the divine curse of God, and they will answer for teaching a false Gospel.

We all who are Born again love God's Holy Law, our main hope and desire is to serve God in perfection and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. In that respect, I can join you as a legalist as well, just not in the true definition of what a legalist is.

[GoldenEagle]

Butero, the "willful sin" of Hebrews 10 is not talking about "sins" or "sinning" in the traditional sense, it is talking about a complete rejection of the economy of Grace that is found only in the sacrifice of Christ. Many were turning back to Old Covenant sacrifices. This is why it is said that "there remains no more or no other sacrifice for sins". Like Tinky said, most of the sins any man or woman commits is "willful". Though I do agree with you that we can sin in ignorance as well.

As far as you being proud to be a legalist, your definition is pretty much your own. When we speak against legalism, and those who hold to legalism we are talking about false brethren and those who add to the pure Gospel of Christ. I know you are against it as well as you acknowledge that only through Jesus Christ and his shed blood is there salvation. You are not a legalist in the sense that we are talking about. The men and women we are talking about are under the divine curse of God, and they will answer for teaching a false Gospel.

We all who are Born again love God's Holy Law, our main hope and desire is to serve God in perfection and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. In that respect, I can join you as a legalist as well, just not in the true definition of what a legalist is.

I think Saved34 put it quite well. Particularly the comments in bold.

[GoldenEagle]

and the other thing that is happening, is that the entire focus of the thread has become about what Butero wants the rest of us to belive. This has happened so frequently that I would hope

we stop it and actually discuss the thread and not some people's beliefs on legalism. He could always start his own thread from which he could defend his stance and anyone who wished

to engage him in the deadlock this thread has developed, could seek him out there

One of the things that has come to light in the thread is that definitions of terms are important. I believe that Butero for example has a definition of legalism or being a legalist that many do not hold. However, I can understand from Butero's perspective where being a legalist according to his definition might be a good thing. I think Saved34 put things into perspective.

However, I do agree. Let's get back to the OP shall we?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

Okay getting back to the OP... What Scriptures do you believe applies to #2?

2. If you believe God’s love for you depends on how much you have done for Him lately and the love you have shown him recently.

Rom. 6:14

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Phil. 4:6-7

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

[Sevenseas]

Okay getting back to the OP... What Scriptures do you believe applies to #2?

2. If you believe God’s love for you depends on how much you have done for Him lately and the love you have shown him recently.

Rom. 6:14

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Phil. 4:6-7

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

I think people get hung up on the idea of sinning and God punishing them because they have sinned. Perhaps someone might feel that God does not love them unconditionally if they

are going through things that they do not understand or suffering for things other people did to them.

I think sometimes people can start to think that they must have done something God does not want to forgive or doesn't forgive. We are taught from a young age (most of us anyway) that

there are consequences for doing something wrong or disobedience. It's almost like waiting for the other proverbial shoe to fall.

I think that when someone gets 'stuck' in some way with their relationship with God that they can start to believe there must be something they need to do to make things better...

As we are under grace and not law, we should understand that we do not complete the equation that secures that grace other than by accepting it. It can be difficult to put away the

concept that we are somehow not worthy or are somehow more sinful then the next person....but the Bible tells us that we are equal in the eyes of God.

I'm not referring to continued or deliberate sin, but sometimes a person really can get stuck here like a hamster on one of those wheels and they just keep going round and round

and and the harder they try, the faster that wheel goes.

So, here are a few scriptures that would refute #2

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom 3:23

There is no one who has not sinned, therefore, we each have the same standing before God...one person is not better than another

There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins. Ecc.7:20

None of us have our own righteousness

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. Rom.5:18

We can see from those verses (and there are many many others) that God did not consider our own righteousness before He sent His Son to die in our place. He knew we were unrighteous

so why would that change once we are saved? We might ask, why would God suddenly stop loving us or why would we need to do things if we did nothing to earn salvation to begin with?

So what I am thinking when I try to consider if thinking or believing God's love for us is dependent on performance is that it can be a legalistic teaching or it may be that a person does not

understand what grace is...sometimes a person may not feel 'worthy' so is that really legalism I am wondering or is something else going on

I will say it can be a bit complicated I think and depends on people's backgrounds, church history or lack thereof and their own understanding

At any rate, I believe the Bible is clear that we cannot earn or be worthy of God's love in the sense that He cuts us off for poor performance

I was kind of thinking out loud in the above process, so if it rambles a bit, it's because I am sorting through it myself as I have not actually considered some of the things being

asked and have sort of gone from A to Z without a whole lot of 24 other things in between

[GoldenEagle]

6. If you focus more on your fellow Christians church attendance, tithing, version of the Bible, outward appearance rather than getting to know others and accepting them where they’re at in their walk with the Lord.

I'll try to respond later on today to this latest post Butero. Meanwhile check this out:

[GoldenEagle]

Ehm. <cough, cough> Are we chasing another rabbit here? We've only discussed really 3 of the OP's 20 statements. Which one should we discuss next?

God bless,

GE